The big news while I was away was the announcement of a further invitation to a member of staff at UEA to appear before the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. We have already had Oxburgh's appearance, and knew that Sir Muir Russell was to appear with Sir Edward Acton at the end of this month. However, it now appears that UEA's Trevor Davies will also be making an appearance. Davies, as regular readers know, was not only Phil Jones predecessor as head of CRU but, more importantly, appears to have been a pivotal figure in the organisation of the "independent" inquiries into CRU. All three men will appear on Wednesday 27th October.
Alongside the announcement of the hearings, the committee has published a number of letters it has received on the subject of the inquiries from interested parties:
00 University of East Anglia
01 David Holland
02 Douglas J. Keenan
04 Lord Oxburgh
05 Bob Critcholow
06 Mr.& Mrs. L. Black
The Oxburgh correspondence is particularly interesting. It deals with follow-up questions raised by committee members after Oxburgh's appearance. These questions were:
Can you explain where the list of eleven papers came from?
Did the list arrive with the panel before the Royal Society had been consulted?
To which Oxburgh replied:
1. The list of papers came to us from the University as a representative sample of the work of CRU that would offer us a way into the subject. We had no direct or detailed knowledge of the origin of the list but understood that the RS was involved in its production. We made no special inquiries on this matter and attached no particular significance to the origin of the list at the time, nor did we later. It in no way restricted our examination of other publications or material.
2. I think that this is very unlikely but we have no way of telling.
I think he had no choice but to 'fess up to the first point. The fact that he misled Parliament and the public by saying the papers were chosen "on the advice of the Royal Society". It is interesting to note that a rather different impression is gained by reading Trevor Davies' email to Rees and Hoskins on 12 March 2010, in which the UEA man writes that Oxburgh is comfortable with the idea of telling the public what papers were to be looked at, but that Oxburgh is keen that they can "say that it was constructed in consultation with the Royal Society".
His response to the second question is odd. He must surely know when the list of papers was circulated to panel members. And it is a matter of public record when the panel was consulted: it was on 12 March 2010. I'm not aware of any allegation that the list went out to the panel prior to the consultation with the Royal Society, so I find the question rather intriguing. No doubt all will be revealed next week.